The trial of Molly Martens

The sentence handed down will confirm this either way- but Im inclined to agree with you and I don’t hold out any hope of more time to be served- something like a 2-4 year probation but no additional time served. Would love to be proved wrong on that though

Here's what the Irish Times report says:

How can a doctor only reading a report allege that the doctor who performed the autopsy was "completely wrong" in her report?

He sounds like a total clown.

It more likely works that the defense argues then prosecution

She certainly was stunning...but all I'm saying by marrying her, he'd already been happy for her to be his children's Stepmom and probably so were the children... seems like her love for his children didn't include him to the same degree, but he was part of the package so to speak for better or worse.

They don't have to make a case that the original conviction was unsafe. The Appeals Court and Supreme Court did that for them.

It's worth noting the Supreme Court ordered a retrial not a plea deal, that was completely down to the prosecution.

What the defence are doing is what the Supreme Court ruled they should have been allowed to do in the first trial.

Re the books, Jasons sister has written 2 off the back of it.

The Judge eventually had to gag her, ironically the defence have said they will use parts of the book in evidence.

Even if there was arguments in the marriage. There must be some punishment for beating the man to death and leaving him to go cold before calling the emergency services.

The lack of injuries on molly or the father puts holes in the self defence argument.

On of the big issues here will be that for cultural reasons an American court will always give more credibility to American witnesses than "foreign" witnesses. American medical witnesses will be believed over an Irish coroner.

Its a sentence hearing not an tiral on the cause of death of his first wife

I assume the angle the defence team are going for is that Martens feared for her life and had suspicions that Corbett had murdered his first wife. This could certainly have implications for mitigation when it comes to sentencing.

What was the point of the prosecution getting medical evidence on the cause of his first wifes death?.

Why would she be treated for asthma if she never had it?

You’re doing your best to try excuse/explain why her and her father just had to batter him to death. And hiding behind red herring desperation defence.

Lol at Martens cheerleaders using evidence.

Cheerleading would be not looking at the evidence. Just blindly swallowing the narrative.

Or specifically today internet pathologists calling an actual pathologist "clown".

Made even more ridiculous considering the pathologist is actually the prosecutions expert witness.

But but but cheerleaders, something something.

If there was any suggestion he killed his first wife why was he never even investigated for it. Also her family continued to stay on good terms with Jason even attending his wedding, surely if they had any doubts they wouldn't have done that. Also why did Mollys mother not testify at the trial, surely her "evidence" would have helped the defence how ever incredible her story was.